engaging and retaining jewish youth - bryfy

Engaging and Retaining Jewish YouthBeyond the Bar/Bat Mitzvah:

An Action Research Study

The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education

Sharon M. Ravitch, Ph.D.

This research and its publication were made possible by a grant from theLasko Charitable Fund,

a philanthropic fund supporting research-based Jewish educationalendeavors in the Greater Philadelphia Area.

Many thanks to Helene Z. Tigay, Rabbi Richard Fagan, and Susan Stone for theircontinued input and support throughout the research and writing process. Thanks also

to ACAJE’s entire CARE (Committee on Adolescent Retention and Engagement)advisory board for their guidance and feedback throughout the research process. A

final thank you to all of the schools, parents, and youth specialists across the region aswell as national youth specialists for their help and participation in this research.

Copyright 2002, The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education.All Rights Reserved.

August 30, 200222 Elul 5762

Shalom,

The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education is committed to the importanceof research in Jewish education. Without it, hunches and fads would direct ourplanning; with it, we will have the knowledge-base to understand the needs of thecommunity as well as the complexities of the issues that it uncovers- - the basesfor informed and thoughtful planning, communal buy-in and innovativeimplementation.

A major challenge that faces us all is: how we can engage and retain our teens inthe Jewish community during their adolescent years, a time when they are grapplingwith the critical issues of identity, community, and spirituality. These years, beforecollege, are the window of opportunity to involve them in meaningful and excitingJewish learning and living, so that their hearts, minds and spirits can be drawn tothe Jewish world.

When I first met with our sponsors, the Lasko Charitable Fund’s Board of Directors,to discuss the possibility of creating an initiative to encourage post Bar/Bat Mitzvahretention through exciting and innovative projects, it became clear to us that thefirst step in such planning should be a research study to determine the needs andinterests of the teens themselves. The study started as a simple survey of alimited number of teens and expanded into a broader-based study which producedsignificantly more information which would have a greater potential for widerapplicability.

This report summarizes the findings of the study and concludes withrecommendations. It has already served as a catalyst to motivate communalleaders in Philadelphia to undertake a major initiative to redesign our synagogueschools in ways that are indicated by the study, as well as a follow-up researchstudy to determine the unique needs in adolescent programming of a particularregion in Philadelphia.

We hope that you, our readers, will be motivated to conduct further research andplanning in this critical area. We look forward to sharing such efforts.

We are grateful to the Lasko Charitable Fund for its generous support and Dr.Sharon Ravitch for her outstanding direction of the project.

Sincerely,

Helene Z. TigayExecutive Director, Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education

The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education (ACAJE) is a hub of educationalendeavors in the Greater Philadelphia Jewish community. Established by the JewishFederation of Greater Philadelphia in 1987, ACAJE provides consultation, training, andresources for professional and lay educators in schools, synagogues, camps, youthgroups, and other organizations throughout the Jewish community.

On the cutting edge of Jewish educational theory and practice, ACAJE consultants offera full range of services and programs which enhance the efforts of educators fromacross the Jewish denominational and age spectrums. Consultants focus on criticalissues which have impact on the future identity and continuity of the Jewish people andconduct research in order to inform planning for professional growth and theenhancement of Jewish pedagogy and practice.

Emphasizing creative methodology and materials, ACAJE professionals in the fields ofearly childhood, elementary, and adolescent education, special needs, the arts, andfamily education augment the professionalism of our Jewish teaching corps. Specialareas such as Hebrew/prayer education, moral education, organizational developmentand leadership training, Israel and Holocaust education are the main foci of our effortsacross curriculum and instruction.

Special programs administered by ACAJE professionals emphasize and intensify thePhiladelphia Jewish community’s connection to Israel and Jewish communities aroundthe world. The Agency’s insightful publications inform educators as well as lay leadersabout cutting-edge research, innovative programs, and resources. The focus onorganizational development helps synagogue schools function in a collaborative andsystemic way.

The Seidman Educational Resource Center, which includes the Gold PedagogicReference Library and the Caplan Educational Activities Lab, houses one of the nation’slargest and most up-to-date collections of Jewish educational materials and serves as amodel for Jewish resource centers throughout the country.

The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education7607 Old York Road

Melrose Park, PA 19027

Phone: 215.635.8940Fax: 215.635.8946

E-mail: [email protected]: www.acaje.org


Table of Contents

I. Introduction p. 2

II. Problem Statement p. 2-3

III. Stages of the Research: An Overview p. 3

IV. Participant Selection p. 4

V. Research Methods p. 4

VI. Research Questions p. 4-5

VII. Research Findings p. 5-13

VIII. Implications of the Study p. 13-17

IX. Conclusion p. 17-18

X. Bibliography p. 19-20


I. Introduction

Despite differences in ideology and school structure across synagogue schools inthe United States, there is widespread consensus across movements, regions, andsynagogue school directors that post B’nai Mitzvah drop out is an epidemic that threatensthe future of American Jewry (Munitz-Gruberger, 2001; Saxe, et al., 2001, Woocher, 1992).As current studies on American Jewry document, American Jews are at an historicalmoment in terms of how to address the serious and ongoing assimilation into mainstreamAmerican society (Woocher, 1992; Saxe, et al., 2001). However, despite serious concernand widespread attention in this area, there seem to be many more questions than answersabout how to remedy the current situation.

The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education (ACAJE) of Greater Philadelphiaset out to find answers to some of these questions in an action research study devoted topost B’nai Mitzvah drop out and retention. From September 2000 to August 2001, ACAJEconducted research in the area of adolescent retention and engagement in the Jewishcommunity post B’nai Mitzvah. The goal of this study was to learn more about how to retainyoung people’s involvement in the Jewish community beyond their Bar or Bat Mitzvah, atime when the majority of young Jews become disconnected from Jewish life, therebylosing opportunities for Jewish learning just as they are developing their identities. Thisresearch was funded by the Lasko Charitable Fund, a philanthropic fund supportingresearch-based Jewish educational endeavors in the Greater Philadelphia Area.

II. Problem Statement

There is widespread concern about the high rates of post B’nai Mitzvah drop out inthe United States. Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in researchand writing on post-B’nai Mitzvah retention issues (e.g., Elias and Kress, 1997; JESNA,2000; Munitz-Gruberger, 2001; Sales, 1996; Saxe, et al., 2001; Woocher, 1992). Despitethe increasing concern about and attention to this issue, relatively little has been done tobridge theory with practice or to bring students’ opinions and voices into the process ofexploration into, and decision-making about, ways to improve their formal and informalJewish experiences. In this study, ACAJE’s goal was to learn about young Jews’ interests,needs, and opinions vis-a-vis synagogueschool education through engaging them in a research study. This study focused on youths’reflections on their synagogue school experiences before, during, and after their Bar/BatMitzvah.

2


The initial goal of this research was to use the findings, which are primarilybased on youths’ responses, to stimulate innovative approaches to adolescent Jewisheducation and to serve as a springboard for community-based post-B’nai Mitzvahinitiatives that will mitigate against post B’nai Mitzvah drop-out rates. As a result of theresearch process, the goals have been broadened to include the improvement ofsynagogue school education prior to Bar and Bat Mitzvah. The findings of this researchwill be used to stimulate planning for and implementation of youth initiatives, both informal and informal Jewish educational spheres, in the Greater Philadelphia Area.

III. Stages of the Research: An Overview

The stages of this research were as follows:

(1) Review of literature and national programs to learn about:• Existing programs (formal and informal) for Jewish adolescents;

• Research on adolescent involvement in Jewish programs nationally andin thePhiladelphia Jewish community specifically.

(2) Creation of an interdisciplinary oversight committee comprised of professional andlay members committed to adolescent involvement in the Jewish community.This functioned as an advisory group during each stage of the research process.

(3) Focus groups, interviews, and surveys with:• A diverse range of Jewish youth between the ages of 11 and 22 across

the Greater Philadelphia Area, to learn about their experiences, needs,and opinions relating to Jewish education, both formal and informal;

• Parents, to learn about their attitudes toward Jewish involvementgenerally and their children’s Jewish education specifically;

• College students, to learn about their reflections on their experiences insynagogue schools, youth groups, and Jewish camps, as well as theinfluence of their Jewish involvement on their lives;

• Local and national youth programming specialists, to determine whatcomprises successful youth programs.

3


IV. Participant Selection

This research was conducted with Jewish youth in the Greater Philadelphia Areabetween the ages of 11 and 22, parents of Jewish youth who are Pre-Bar/Bat Mitzvah, intheir Bar/Bat Mitzvah year and post Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and youth professionalsrepresenting formal and informal realms of Jewish education, both locally and nationally.Diversity was sought with respect to the youths’ age, gender, geographical region,movement affiliation, and nature of Jewish involvement (or non-involvement), with afocused attempt to include non-affiliated youth (i.e., both “drop-outs” and those who havenever been involved in formal Jewish contexts) from a range of backgrounds andregions.

V. Research Methods

Approximately 800 Jewish youth from the Greater Philadelphia Area participatedin this study. Of these youth, close to 500 participated in structured focus groups ofbetween 10 and 15 students. Participants in the focus groups also completed surveysdesigned to elicit their individual opinions. An additional 150 youth were interviewed byphone and 150 youth completed surveys via E-mail. Parents and teachers wereinterviewed by phone and E-mail, as were youth professionals, who also completeddetailed surveys.

VI. Research Questions

In this study, we sought answers to the following questions:

• What will it take to keep Jewish youth involved in the Jewish community post Bar/Bat Mitzvah?

• What are Jewish youths’ experiences of Jewish education leading up to their Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and how/do those experiences influence their decision to stayinvolved in the Jewish community after their Bar/Bat Mitzvah?

• What are young Jews’ interests and ideas in relation to Jewish education andJewish life?

4


• What is the correlation between parents’ attitudes towards Jewish education andtheir children’s involvement in Jewish education and/or activities post B’naiMitzvah?

• Do demographic differences account for any of the contrasting needs of Jewishyouth vis-a-vis formal and informal Jewish education?

VII. Research Findings

The findings of this study, and therefore the focus of this report, reflect the youths’views rather than ACAJE’s philosophical approach to synagogue schools. While readersmight feel disappointed that this report does not focus on specific substantive curricularareas (such as spirituality or ritual, for example), it is important to bear in mind that thefindings reflect what the youth focused on in their discussions of the issues.

The five findings of this study are complex and multifaceted, and they point topossible recommendations for the Jewish community of Greater Philadelphia andbeyond. The complexity of our findings is due in large part to the fact that there issignificant diversity within the Jewish youth population of the Greater Philadelphia Areawith respect to Jewish family involvement, degree of participation in Jewish life (whichincludes formal as well as in informal Jewish programming), religious affiliation,geographic region, and socioeconomics. These factors, along with age and gender,were found to significantly influence young Jews’ interests and needs vis-a-vis theirJewish educational experiences.

One general finding is that the majority of the young people interviewed haveinformed perspectives on their Jewish educational experiences. They therefore havemuch to recommend to adults interested in enhancing Jewish education and improvingthe rates of adolescent retention in Jewish educational contexts and Jewish communalactivities. Particularly evident was the fact that many of the young people interviewedhave strong and sophisticated opinions about what they would like from Jewishinstitutions, both educational and social, and firmly stated that they want to be part of thedecision-making process of determining curriculum and programming.

It should be noted that ACAJE began this study with the belief that the datacollected would lead us to a better understanding of what types of programs would drawin and engage post B’nai Mitzvah students. The guiding assumption was that the primarysystemic issue causing post B’nai Mitzvah drop out was that programs faltered

5


in their focus and quality after the Bar/Bat mitzvah years. Therefore, we understood our goalas to learn from students about how to enhance such programming. What we discovered wasquite different from our original belief. In fact, after listening to students’ thoughts about theirexperiences in synagogue school and the relationship to their choices about staying involvedin Jewish education, it became quite clear that the issue of post-B’nai Mitzvah drop out anddisengagement had more to do with youths’ pre-B’nai Mitzvah formal Jewish educationalexperiences than anything else.

The overwhelming majority of the youth who participated in the study stated that by thetime they became Bar or Bat Mitzvah, they had become increasingly frustrated by “boring”teachers and “repetitive stuff” and that, as a result, they saw no point in devoting their valuabletime to the further pursuit of a Jewish education. These students communicated, with strikingconsistency, that they found synagogue school to be no more than the “same old stuff” yearafter year and that because it felt “so useless” there was no reason to return after they werenot required by their families to do so. The following student’s comments represent a commonperspective, she stated, “I guess I, l like, keep learning the same exact stuff every single year,I know everything I need to, so I mean, why should I go?” It was striking, however, that despitethe youths’ feelings of frustration, there were relatively few students who said that they simplydid not want to go to synagogue school. Most students reported that they did not mind goingbecause many of their friends went anyway, but they were nonetheless clearly asking thattheir time be spent more usefully. As one student stated “I mean, like we’re here anyway, sowhy can’t they actually teach us something or make it fun?!” In the section that follows we willexplore these findings and, in the final section of this report, we will discuss the implications ofthese findings for future research and programming, both locally and nationally.

Finding #1: The Jewish Education System Needs to Undergo a ParadigmShift

Enlivening Jewish Learning: “This is Not Your Father’s Hebrew School”

“I want to learn about why Judaism is so important, like really, for me today not just theMaccabees.” –9th grader

“It would be so cool if Hebrew School had something to do with, you know, real life.” –8thgrader

The majority of participants across all age groups, regions, and movements reportedthat their synagogue school experiences lacked meaningful, active learning

6


and that, as a result, they often found themselves feeling bored and restless duringschool time. These students repeatedly requested that ongoing community service,debates on critical issues, increased social time, and the opportunity to mentor/tutoryounger students become integrated into their synagogue school curricula.

It became clear across ages and contexts that students are savvy consumers oftheir educational experiences. In their interviews, the youth made it clear that theydesire more than traditional, didactic modes of teaching and that they find the passive,frontal learning model left over from earlier years of synagogue school to be a bad fitwith the way they want to learn. These findings are supported by a recent studyconducted by Brandeis University, in which the research team found that, “More thanhalf of the teens reported that at the age of 11 or 12 they seldom or never enjoyedHebrew school... Two-thirds always or often felt bored, compared with one-third inregular school” (Saxe, et al. 2001). Given that synagogue schools are competing forstudents’ time alongside a multitude of extracurricular activities, and that students areoften given the choice by their parents as to whether they wish to attend synagogueschool post B’nai Mitzvah (Saxe, et al., 2001), the fact that they do not find synagogueschool to be a challenging, enriching, or meaningful experience does not auger well forretention.

Stated simply, throughout the research process it became clear that becausetoday’s youth are considerably more sophisticated in terms of their needs vis-a-vistheir educational experience, they want, need, and expect more from synagogueschool than their parents did. These higher expectations are due in large part toincreased experience with student-centered pedagogy in their secular classrooms.Specifically, students expect that they will be actively engaged in learning and that thelearning experience will reach beyond the confines of their synagogue classrooms.Our data point to a desire on the part of contemporary synagogue school students tobe engaged by their teachers in various forms of experiential learning and in learningthat is connected to critical thought and meaningful, ongoing forms of communityaction. As a recent study on the value of social action in Jewish education notes, “Foryoung Jewish adults, being Jewish and caring about the world and working on it areintimately connected and mutually reinforcing. They regard community service work asa part of being Jewish. They report that, in turn, their volunteer work has strengthenedtheir own Jewish identity, giving them a greater understanding of their Jewishbackground and a greater sense of responsibility to live a Jewish life in the future”(Partnership for Service, 2001). In our study, students from all age groups positivelyrecalled experiences with community service, active learning exercises, and semi-structured social time. These positive reflections stand in sharp contrast to their typical

7


reflections on their synagogue school experiences, which consistently focused onfeelings of disappointment, boredom, and frustration.

It became clear throughout the research process that American synagogueschools must undergo a paradigm shift. Today’s students are aware of, and aretherefore resistant to, sub-standard teaching and recycled curricular materials. And,while students may be too tired at the end of a long day to communicate this to theirteachers, they are communicating this with their feet as they walk out of synagogueschools just after their Bar or Bat Mitzvah, never to return. The overwhelming majorityof students in the study made it clear that their choice not to stay in synagogue school(either an impending or historical choice) was precipitated by the feeling that therewas/is nothing compelling to keep them there. This stood in sharp contrast to studentswho chose to stay in synagogue school after their Bar or Bat Mitzvah because theirprograms, teachers, and/or educational directors created environments in which theyfelt energized and engaged socially, intellectually, and in terms of social action, and inwhich they felt personally connected and supported. This contrast speaks directly tothe need for the professional development of educators through training in which theteachers are engaged as whole people and inspired to teach and connect withstudents around powerful Jewish concepts and values. It also speaks to the need fordevelopment of sequenced and innovative curricula and enhanced programming thatprovides multiple gateways for Jewish youth to learn about and express their Judaism.Further, this contrast makes clear that there is a dire need for more accountabilitywithin the synagogue school system, as well as for focused, supportive, and ongoingprofessional and leadership development for teachers and their educational directors.

Finding #2: Teacher Training and Curriculum DevelopmentLearning to Teach and Teaching to Learn: The Need for Quality Control

“Do Hebrew School teachers ever even learn how to teach?” –8th grader

“The basics are enough, I mean we already know them. Why can’t we have classesabout things we don’t know instead of the same old thing every year?”–9th grader

As indicated above, the vast majority of students from all age groups reportedthat their teachers did not involve them in the classroom or give them the opportunityto explore or express their opinions and questions about Jewish issues. Rather,students reported that their teachers tended to follow teachers’ manuals from outdatedtextbooks and/or that they seemed to simply “do whatever was easiest for them to

8


do,” such as “teaching off the top of their heads” rather than working with planned,meaningful, sequential materials that build on students’ prior knowledge andexperiences in synagogue school. Furthermore, students pointed to the fact that manyof their teachers lack pedagogical and management skills, as well as a sufficient Judaicknowledge base. These students repeatedly voiced frustration at feeling “forced” to sitin classrooms with teachers who themselves seemed disengaged and who lackedinspiration, expertise, pedagogical skills, and effective classroom managementstrategies. The contrast between students who reported negative feelings andexperiences and those who reported that their synagogue school experiences werelargely positive, was dramatic and pointed repeatedly to the power of creative, student-centered, and engaging teaching that was implemented by knowledgeable teacherswho were passionate about the subject matter.

The high school-aged participants reported that they would have been morelikely to remain in the Jewish educational system beyond their Bar/Bat Mitzvah if thecurricula had been personally meaningful, relevant to their secular lives, sequential,developmentally appropriate, student-centered, based on active learning models, andtaught by teachers who are able to engage students. Many of the high school-agedparticipants reported that their synagogue school experience did not contribute topositive feelings about their Jewishness, nor did it give them the background necessaryto lead a meaningful Jewish life. One young woman, for example, noted that she “didn’teven learn how to run a Jewish home.” The majority of high school-aged participantsreported that their main reason for leaving formal Jewish education was that theirsynagogue school experience leading up to their Bar/Bat Mitzvah was not “meaningful,”“valuable,” or “enjoyable.”

Conversely, students (both pre- and post-B’nai Mitzvah) reported that when theyhad engaging and knowledgeable teachers who gave them the opportunity to thinkcritically about various issues, they enjoyed synagogue school and valued theirlearning. The teachers who engaged their students with exciting material and inspiredpedagogy were respected, adored, and viewed as mentors. Not surprisingly, it was thestudents who had teachers showing this kind of commitment and skill who typicallywished to (and in many cases did) return to synagogue school after their Bar or BatMitzvah and who voiced more of an understanding about the importance of receiving aJewish education.

What was striking about the majority of the students’ responses to questionsabout their learning experiences was that there were only a few cases in which studentsunilaterally “bashed” their teachers and schooling experiences. Rather, the pattern wasthat students communicated that since they “are [t]here already anyway” they felt

9


frustrated that the time was not made more interesting and engaging and that genuinelearning was not happening. Most of the students who participated in the study notedthat they expected to go to synagogue school and did not challenge that underlyingassumption. However, they did question the quality, value, and meaning of theirsynagogue school experiences. Many students from all age groups said that they likedtheir teachers, but often, these teachers lacked the ability to teach the subject matter inways that were interesting and often lacked the skills necessary to control theclassroom. These students typically communicated that it seemed odd that theirteachers did not have these skills since their “regular” school teachers did.

The overwhelming consistency of these findings points most directly to the needfor the recruitment of quality teachers and the necessary training to ensure high quality,cutting- edge instruction in our synagogue schools. This will be further discussed in theImplications section of this report.

Finding #3: Diversifying Curriculum, Instruction and Programming forJewish Youth

“One Size Does Not Fit All”

As stated in the Introduction, diversity was sought with respect to theparticipants’ age, gender, geographical region, movement affiliation, and nature of theirJewish involvement (or non-involvement), with a focused attempt to include non-affiliated students from a range of backgrounds and regions. It became strikingly clearafter engaging with students across the entire region that students from differentdemographic areas have varying needs in terms of pedagogy and programming. Whileapproximately 90 percent of the participants voiced that they wanted more out of theirsynagogue school experiences, there were some important qualitative differencesamong students. For example, students from higher socioeconomic backgroundstended to communicate more interest in participating in programs such as ski trips andcoffee houses and had no financial concerns about doing so, whereas theircounterparts from less financially secure families asked questions and showed concernabout funding and transportation for such events. Additionally, students from middleand working class families seemed more interested in developing school-basedprograms related to building technology skills and refining future career goals (e.g.,resume building and learning computer skills), whereas their counterparts fromsynagogues with a higher socioeconomic base communicated that these areas wereextensively covered at home and in their schools. There were also, not surprisingly,differences across gender and age. The girls tended to be more interested in the socialand ritual aspects of synagogue school and the boys in sports and action-related

10


activities. In addition, age played a major role in what students expected fromsynagogue school. For example, older students often voiced the desire to meet andinteract with Jewish peers from other schools and to engage in active debate aboutcritical social issues and regions as a part of their synagogue school experiences,whereas the younger students did not communicate such interests. Our research ofsuccessful post-B’nai Mitzvah programs shows that institutions with high rates ofadolescent retention integrate Jewish values and programs with social time and secularactivities in creative ways that meet students’ needs, both as Jews and as individualsliving in a secular society. Therefore, the differences in students’ desires and needs vis-a-vis programming through their synagogue schools prove important for thinking aboutcreating informal programming, as well as for rethinking formal Jewish educationcurricula and programming given its current lack of appeal.

These differences in the desires and needs that students expressed speak to thefact that synagogue schools need to not only improve the content and style ofinstruction, but also to consider developmental, socioeconomic, gender, and regionaldifferences as they plan to make positive changes in synagogue school education andprogramming. They point directly to the need to think critically, progressively, andinclusively about curriculum, instruction, and programming for Jewish youth so thatstudents’ desires, such as coffee houses and gaining technology skills, becomeintegrated into educational programming both pre- and post-B’nai Mitzvah. This will befurther explored in the Implications section of this report.

Finding #4: Parental Roles In Post B’nai Mitzvah Retention“It Takes a Village to Raise a Family”

“My Dad always tells me how bad he was in Hebrew School and it’s so funny. He saidhe thinks it’s a waste of time, that I could be playing ball or doing something else.”–7thgrader

“I mean, my Mom and Step-Dad don’t know the answers when I ask them for help withmy homework or projects. I have so much homework that I can’t go and find that stufftoo.” –8th grader

It comes as no surprise that parents’ attitudes, both positive and negative, towardJewish education have a direct impact on their children’s level of interest and willingnessto participate in Jewish social and educational spheres (Saxe, et al., 2001). Forexample, when parents viewed synagogue school as a rite of passage to be endured

11


in order to reach a Bar or Bat Mitzvah rather than as an opportunity for Jewish learningand growth for their children and families as a whole, so did their children. In contrast,when parents valued Jewish education and actively participated in the Jewish communitythemselves, their children were more likely to value Jewish learning and continue theirown Jewish education post Bar/Bat Mitzvah.

Both the youths’ and their parents’ responses supported the widely acceptednotion that parents’ beliefs about their children’s Jewish education has much to do withtheir own sense of priority about Jewish education. Many youth reported that theyreceived either tacit or explicit messages from their parents that they viewed their child’sBar or Bat Mitzvah as little more than an historic rite of passage. For example, onestudent stated “I’m doing it ‘cause my Mom Mom and Pop Pop would be mad at my Momif I didn’t.” Many students said that they had no intention of pursuing anything Jewish-related after the day passed. As one student admitted, “The day I read my Haftorah, I’moutta here!” In contrast, the students who reported that they wanted to continue with theirJewish education generally noted that either: (a) their parents insisted and placed greatimportance on their continuing Jewish education; and/or (b) their parents were themselvesinvolved in the synagogue and some form of Jewish learning and practice. Likewise, ofthe parents interviewed, those whose children continued with their Jewish education postB’nai Mitzvah were clearly themselves committed to Jewish learning and/or communityinvolvement, whereas parents whose children were not involved tended to communicatetheir own reluctance or lack of a sense of connection to their synagogues and their ownJewish learning.

It became clear that when parents took synagogue school seriously, so did theirchildren. The correlation between parent and child attitudes toward Jewish education waspowerful in its consistency and points toward important implications for drawing familiesinto the educational process of pre-B’nai Mitzvah education, as well as the need forongoing and meaningful outreach from Jewish institutions and the Jewish community atlarge to parents and families. Further, it speaks to the need for training in family outreachand education for teachers and educational directors, so that they are aware of the needfor family involvement and able to proactively and consistently address this need. This willbe further discussed in the Implications section of this report.

Finding #5: The Collective Abandonment of Jewish Youth“Out of Sight, Out of Mind”

The majority of youth who left synagogue school after their Bar or Bat Mitzvahreported a lack of outreach from the Jewish community after their departure. This

12


finding addresses an issue which has been outside the purview of Jewish educationalcontexts, both formal and informal: namely, what happens to those youth (and families)who have left formal Jewish educational contexts after their Bar or Bat Mitzvah. Theseyouth stated that there was no outreach whatsoever from Jewish leaders or peers afterthey left their synagogue schools and/or youth groups and communicated varying levels ofdisappointment about their lack of connection to their synagogue school and Jewishcommunity more generally.

For these youth, who drop out of synagogue school just after their Bar or BatMitzvah and leave the formal Jewish education system of their synagogue, there is nolonger a solid or consistent connection to Jewish life. Many of these studentscommunicated that they would be interested in attending informal Jewish events, andeven possibly school-based events or innovative school programs, but that they were notcontacted by anyone after their first year of leaving the school. A significant number ofstudents noted that outreach might have made a difference in their decision to return tosynagogue school. For example, one student responded to our researcher’s phone inquirywith excitement and immediately asked how he could get involved in Jewishprogramming. He stated “Wow, I would really like to be involved; no one calls meanymore.” This finding speaks to the need for outreach in innovative ways given youngpeoples’ high-tech, fast-paced lives. It also underscores the decentralized nature ofJewish communal life in America.

VIII. Implications of the Study

The findings of this research suggest a number of possible directions to pursue inaddressing the critical issue of retaining young people in the Jewish community beyondtheir Bar or Bat Mitzvah. The recommendations that follow are the outgrowth of ourresearch findings. While much of what we have discovered can be generalized beyondour regional context, we urge regional research on this topic so that the inquiry andresulting actions are sophisticated in terms of their sensitivity to community differences.These recommendations are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to engender activedialogue about how to remedy the current crisis in Jewish involvement among Jewishyouth and their families.

13


Implication #1: Systemic Revision of the Jewish Educational System:Beyond Turf Wars

Students’ critiques of their Jewish educational experiences, which cross over avariety of formal and informal educational institutions, speak to the need for institutionalintegration of youth curricula, teaching staff, and programming, as well as a systemsapproach for adolescent programming across institutions. Such a shift would require theformation and implementation of a system of communication across formal and informaleducators, so that the Jewish education and outreach system is unified, continuous, andinterdependent. Creating an interactive system across institutions would contribute to less“reinventing the wheel” programming, as well as to a seamless experience across youth’seducational experiences, both formal and informal. Facilitating this paradigm shift willrequire a reenvisioning of the Jewish educational system across movements and venues,as well as serious reconsideration of how Jewish programming for youth is conceptualized(i.e., intra- and inter-institutional restructuring toward a collaborative model).

Implication #2: The Need for Intensive Teacher Trainingand Curriculum Development

Students’ reports about the poor quality of their synagogue school experiencesspeak to the need for a systemic focus on teacher training and professional developmentfor teachers and educational directors toward the goal of making the curriculum andinstruction sequential, student-centered, and responsive to students’

needs. As students reported with striking consistency, Jewish education is typicallypassive and frontal and must become more active and interactive, so that the learning ismeaningful and teachers involve and engage their students in the learning process.Students must feel that they are being engaged in meaningful dialogue and activities, suchas community service, both inside and outside of the classroom. Students also reportedthat they want to spend semi-structured time with peers yet do not just want to “sit aroundanymore.” Teachers must learn how to incorporate active learning strategies and activitiesinto their teaching. This can only happen when the teachers’ knowledge base is enhanced,so that they have serious, in-depth, meaningful lessons to offer.

14


Implication #3: Jewish Education Needs to Shift

• Jewish education needs clear goals that relate directly to the needs, wants, anddemands of youths’ lives and that directly relate to Jewish educators’ thoughtfulreflections on their goals for students. There is a need to clarify this concept forand with educators so that the educational experience is dynamic andmeaningful (and “cool”).

• Jewish education needs to integrate successful strategies and pedagogicalmodels from both formal and informal education since Jewish educators cannotteach the cognitive without the affective and social aspects of Judaism.

• Synagogue schools need to promote the positive aspects of Jewish learning andJewish living by engaging students and their families in a creative, new approachto Jewish education.

• Synagogue schools, and the synagogues that house them, must shift theirorganizational infrastructure so that: (1) education becomes central tosynagogue functioning; (2) rabbis and synagogue leaders become integratedinto the process of teaching and learning; and (3) teachers are provided withinstitutionally structured ways of providing regular input and engaging in directpartnerships with educational staff (e.g., educational director, cantor, rabbi) fordeveloping, evaluating, and facilitating programs.

• There needs to be an elevated system of student accountability so that studentsreceive the message that their Jewish learning is important. The implementationof a grading system that parallels secular school grading structures would help todemonstrate that teachers and parents care about student performance and thatthey take Jewish education seriously.

• The suggested improvements in the synagogue schools must be applied to post-B’nai Mitzvah contexts, as well as to pre B’nai Mitzvah contexts. Though theyouth participants stated that they are turned off by synagogue school pre B’naiMitzvah, we learned that many post B’nai systems need major revisions as well.Post B’nai Mitzvah programs cannot simply resemble pre-B’nai Mitzvahsynagogue school. The culture must be different, reflecting the different and

15


considerably more sophisticated needs of older youth. Teachers and youthleaders need specific training in the areas of relating to and planning curriculafor adolescents.

Implication #4: The Need for Parental Education and Involvement

• Parents’ investment in their children’s Jewish education typically lasts until theirchild becomes a Bar or Bat Mitzvah. In order to make a significant change inthis pervasive attitude, Jewish educators must create programs within an entiresystem that: (1) attract and engage parents in learning and living Jewishly frompre-school through high school graduation in new and innovative ways; (2) seekongoing parental buy-in; and (3) model valuing Jewish education for its ownsake, not simply a means to a Bar or Bat Mitzvah. This will require long-rangeplanning, comprehensive programming, and systemic change.

• Since parents often focus on their own less-than-ideal synagogue schoolexperiences and then pass on that negativity to their children, synagogueschools and Jewish organizations must replace their perceptions of synagogueschool/Jewish educators with contemporary, resonant images that appeal totoday’s Jewish families. To this end, there needs to be an experientialcomponent to synagogue school. Jewish educators also need to better integrateJewish education into people’s lives. This will help parents realize that Jewisheducation can become embedded in their daily lives, and will foster a sense thatJewish education is integral to Jewish life and identity. In this area, the Jewishcommunity as a whole must work to undo the devaluation of leading a Jewishlife and of obtaining Jewish education by promoting a positive, appealing, andmeaningful sense of Jewish life.

• Jewish educators and rabbis must serve as active mentors and advisers toparents and families, helping them create a “Jewish family strategic plan.”

• Jewish educational institutions need to provide a variety of entrees into theJewish world for families, creating a continuum on which they can move backand forth in their level of involvement over time.

16


Implication #5: A Call to Stop Abandoning our Jewish Youth

There needs to be a system of accountability within the Jewish community asa whole so that students and families who opt out of the system do not ultimately feeltoo alienated to return. This must be thought through collaboratively and creatively.Institutions should collectively hire outreach workers to contact and engage youthand families who leave the formal Jewish educational system and its essential youthgroups.

IX. Conclusion: A Call for Action Research in the Study of Jewish Youth

The findings of this study speak to the need for systemic accountability andprofessional development across Jewish educational contexts. Specifically, our datapoint to the need for synagogue schools to better meet the needs of theirconstituencies: youth and their families. In addition to improving programming forpost B’nai Mitzvah youth and their families, the seeds for valuing Jewish learningmust be sowed well before that time. This has both local and national implications,and we urge other centralized institutions to engage in action research in thisdomain; research that crosses over movements, specific venues, and demographicareas, so that all Jewish institutions can come together to better serve Jewish youthand ensure the future of the Jewish people.

It is important to note that one of most significant findings came as a resultof engaging in action research. We began this research as a response to a generousoffer of funding for post B’nai Mitzvah programming from the Lasko Charitable Fund.Together, we decided that rather than simply creating new programming, we shouldstructure a formal, action-oriented inquiry into what the youth themselves wanted andvalued. This inquiry became the preliminary step to creating an implementation planfor post B’nai Mitzvah retention and engagement. The information gleaned throughthis research process has proven essential as a guide to the formation of bothcommunity-based youth initiatives and initiatives geared toward intensive training forteachers and leadership development for educational directors. Together, wedeveloped a research plan for engaging in data collection across the entirePhiladelphia region, and explored in depth the needs, concerns, and desires of adiverse range of local youth. The research process included gaining feedbackfrom a broad spectrum of professionals and parents as well. As we learned more,the number of informants grew to include a sufficient representation from a diverserange of geographic regions, movements, age groups, and levels of Jewishinvolvement. For future research in this area, we recommend an

17


in-depth exploration of camping and youth group experiences, which have beenreported to be successful in terms of youth engagement and retention, to determinewhat aspects of their success can be further enhanced and incorporated into thesynagogue school system.

This model of research, in which the funders are involved in the researchprocess and in which an interdisciplinary advisory committee helped to provide criticalfeedback with respect to all aspects of the research process, yielded a quality of dataand analysis that far exceeded our original expectations. This research study wasstructured as a self-conscious pursuit of multiple perspectives toward the end ofinstitutional change and systemic reform. The collaborative and action-oriented natureof this research resulted in a particularly focused commitment to a community-wideagenda dealing with significant issues that will affect the future of Jewish youth and theJewish community as a whole.

18


Selected Bibliography

Elias, M.J., and Kress, J.S., (1997). “Action-Research-Based Transformation of AfterSchool Religious School Education: A Case Study Approach.” In Meeting theNeeds of Jewish Adolescents: Successes in the Field... Emerging Trends.Presentation at the Jewish Educators Assembly. Rye: NY.

Horowitz, B. (2000). “Connections and Journeys: Assessing Critical Opportunities forEnhancing Jewish Identity.” A Report to the Commission on Jewish Identity andRenewal. UJA-Federation of New York. New York: NY.

Kadushin, C., Kelner, S., Saxe, L. (2000). “Being a Jewish Teenager in America: Tryingto Make It.” Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.Boston: MA.

Keller, C. and Margolis, D.J., (Eds.) (1995). “...Al Pi Darko... In Their Own Way.” TheProceedings from a Policy/Program Conference on The Jewish Adolescent inNorth America. Boston Commission on Jewish Continuity, Bureau of JewishEducation. Boston: MA.

Kosmin, B.A., and Keysar, A. (1999). “Four Up”: The High School Years. Ratner Centerfor the Study of Conservative Judaism, The Jewish Theological Seminary. NewYork: NY.

JESNA. (2000). Agenda: Jewish Education: New Approaches to Teen Issues. Issue#13, Summer 2000. New York: NY.

Munitz-Gruberger, R. (2001). “Keeping The Faith: How to Avoid the Bar/Bat MitzvahDropout Blues.” Women’s League Outlook, Vol. 72, No 1, Fall 2001.

Partnership for Service Survey. (2001). “Exploring the Potential to Expand VolunteerOpportunities for Young Jewish Adults.” Jewish Life Network and Partnership forService. New York: NY.

Sales, A.L. (1996). Jewish Youth Databook: Research on Adolescence and ItsImplications for Jewish Teen Programs. Cohen Center for Modern JewishStudies, Brandeis University. Boston: MA.

Saxe, L., Kelner, S., Kadushin, C. and Brodsky, A. (2001). “Jewish Adolescents:American Teenagers Trying to ‘Make It’.” Cohen Center for Modern JewishStudies, Brandeis University. Boston: MA.

19


Wertheimer, J., (Ed). (1995-1996). “Jewish Identity and Religious Commitment.” TheNorth American Study of Conservative Synagogues and Their Members. RatnerCenter for the Study of Conservative Judaism, The Jewish Theological Seminary.New York: NY.

Woocher, J. (1992). “The Future of Supplementary School Education.” Lecture Deliveredat The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education. Philadelphia, PA.

20

For additional copies of this publication, please contact ACAJE:[email protected] or 215.635.8940

The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education7607 Old York Road

Melrose Park, PA 19027

Phone: 215.635.8940Fax: 215.635.8946

E-mail: [email protected]: www.acaje.org

engaging and retaining jewish youth - bryfy

Documents